Making a Case for Reason Over Outrage
Politics can be quite a circus, can it not?
Have you ever found yourself outraged by what a person has written or said?
Source
Why so?
Have you ever felt that chill run up your spine as you recoil in horror at that of which you have just been told?
Are you told about it or do you simply find out?
Does the person actually tell you him or herself?
Is there a context to the exposition or does it seem to 'come out of the blue'?
Do you know the person about which the exposition is?
All these details and more serve to determine how you process this new information.
Source
Friendships & Even Love Can End in the Span of a Few Words
The reason why this is so is because the outrage impresses itself against a contrasting backdrop of the person you think that you "thought you knew".
It takes time to establish a rapport with people.
This even applies upon Steemit. One's personal brand can go a long way to what peoples' expectations are from you. Sometimes one's brand is delivered by choice.
At other times one's brand is affected by one's outbursts. Persons who seem angry and abrasive or who otherwise express deeply unpopular views might inspire users to either stay away from their posts, unfollow them or even down-vote them.
Still... is there no responsibility to be borne by the spectator who allows the self to become outraged?
Outrage Can Occur Upon All Levels of Society
The political sphere is no stranger to statements that spark outrage. Some end careers while others inspire headlines. Some do both.
Source
In March of 2017, Polish MEP Janusz Korwin-Mikke was met with outrage when he claimed that women "must" earn less than men in the workplace because they are "weaker, smaller and less intelligent".
This during a debate in the European Parliament regarding the gender pay gap.
For his claims he was widely derided and was even suspended from parliamentary plenary sessions for ten days.
Here is the Twist.
I respect this man's choice to voice his genuine thoughts on the matter no matter whether he was right or wrong - or the sort of backlash that he undoubtedly knew would be waiting for him.
This does not require me to accept what he said in any shape or form.
He could have instead stated that he believed that a global policy of male castration for those born in the odd months of the year is the best way to counter rampant unsustainable population growth (yes - in case you were wondering - that would affect me (though ironically not him)).
Source
I would still respect his choice to voice such a "ballsy" view - not because it is necessarily right (and I'd be personally invested in demonstrating that he is not) but because in expressing his view he broadens the scope of the discourse. It requires his claims to be addressed...
(Notice that I mention his claims... not his person)
...and validated or corrected such that they have substance to add to a given debate.
One cannot fail to do this while simultaneously pontificating about the desirability of honesty among politicians. The sad reality is that honesty is not an optimal way to conduct politics. In the courtroom of popular opinion, the popular view shall always win against a necessary view. More-so - the necessary view will be set ablaze and sullied if it is deemed flammable or sully-able.
This does not require an inferior argument but merely popular leverage.
Is it healthy to perpetuate a situation where political honesty is an unviable ideal? Not really... but it is what many of us have to contend with as our emotions get the better of us.
Source
One has only scratched the surface, again seeking to improve human thinking through revealing the sub-optimal aspects of what we presently maintain to be adequate.
To return to the above example, in spite of his expressing a view that could itself be demonstrated to be "weaker, smaller, and less intelligent", one good thing to say about this man is that he showed courage to state exactly what he thought.
I would suggest that this courage, to be transparent about one's views, is what more politicians should aspire to emulate as second nature.
Perhaps politics would thus become cleaner as a result, as views such as these surfacing could be challenged and, when inferior, debunked to permit for real social evolution.
And it is only through exposure to the light that shadows may be chased away, otherwise hiding and growing within the hearts of women and men.
Think back upon times that you've felt outrage.
Was it warranted? Would things have gone better if you had used calm and reason to face the matter instead?
Was it sparked by yourself or did some social element spark off your emotions?
Well - in any case, if you found this post interesting and would like to share this with your friends then a resteem couldn't hurt.
If you 'didn't' like this then feel free to share your views in comments. A civil conversation can go a long way.
Sincerely,
This is exactly the reason why I think the freedom of speech is important and I will fight for yours even if I think you are full of crap. Our democracy claims to be based on arguing all of the different opinions and then finding the best solution through this discourse. Banning opinions from being discussed should be impossible in a democratic system. You can hardly discuss with somebody who is not honest.
You could ban a women rights speaker 100 years ago with the same outrage "He is not recognizing our medical (and medieval) studies that women are too stupid to form a political opinion, he must be insane to dispute science!"
There are 1st wave feminists ranting about 3rd wave feminism but the media kindly ignores them.
You absolutely get it @thatgermandude. :c)
As inconsistencies are revealed, a given paradigm demonstrates itself to be flawed. It can try to strike those with superior views or awareness down but it shall ultimately fall - having only achieved momentary delays and a deepening of its own shame as it goes.
Thank you for stopping by @thatgermandude. ^_^
This is why philosophy is such a wonderful tool. Logic replaces emotion, which helps us look at issues objectively. Yet we are only human, and people have a tendency to let their emotions (or other peoples' emotions) get the best of them.
You also make an interesting point about honesty in politics. I definitely agree that we shouldn't hide our opinion, or necessarily punish those who voice their own truth. This is also assuming that political leaders are open to discussing their inner most thoughts in public (without flipping on issues).
Thanks for the post, I enjoyed it!
I am glad to hear that you enjoyed reading through this post @jrhhewett. :c)
I quite agree. Even the best-intentioned of individuals can be rendered susceptible to emotional compromise when matters hit very close to home. I also like your reference to "other peoples' emotions" - as yes, outrage (real or contrived) can be infectious.
It is my view that persons should not be punished for expressing their views - even if elements of those views might immediately seem reprehensible or otherwise disturbing. At the very least there is value in such views now residing 'above the table'. Such views can be addressed - their logic or lack thereof can be picked apart - and superior views can be posed against them.
I would even suggest that flipping on issues, whether one be a politician or not, need not be considered a negative thing provided that there is a clear crumb trail that can be followed to outline the evolution of perspective (beyond populist motives).
Such provides hope for a cleaner kind of politics - like opening the windows in a house to let the stagnant air flow. :c)
Thank you again for your very thoughtful comment!
When I've been faced with someone saying something outrageous (subjective, of course), I've found that shutting my mouth or sitting on my hands (if it's online) is the best course of action to assess the situation. For me, it's fight or flight combined with the amount of time I might have to invest in the argument. Is it worth it or do I write the person off? I'm not easily offended. I prefer to live and let live but I also say do no harm.
I refuse to be bothered by ignorance. Someone once said I needed to go back to my own country. I'm half-Korean. Apparently my slanty eyes bothered them. And when I said, "Is that the best you've got? I thought you were trying to hurt my feelings or something." Okay... maybe I was being passive aggressive LOL. They managed to turn a bright shade of red.
Thank you @merej99, both for your comment and your upvote.
Also, again, for organizing the Community Engagement Challenge. I cannot believe that I missed the announcement post (that I was waiting for to thank you personally for the rewards). It may be too late but I will find appropriate fora within which to do so! :c)
To get back on subject, choosing to stay one's tongue (or fingers) while another is making their case puts you ahead of the curve, in my opinion. People who seek to 'talk over' others act with the purpose of stifling the message of the individual concerned.
The written medium is generally more resilient to this but there are other means that can be abused to achieve a similar effect (flagging or similar). Such used irresponsibly can denote one who objects but who also doesn't feel confident about their ability to form a refutation to another's view. Thus they resort to the cheap and nasty.
Should you be offended by somebody taking offense to what you are (race, features, religion, nationality, cultural background, health status, gender, political outlook, etc.)?
Yes... yes you should. Because somebody deriding you for 'being' something is 'at best' vastly inferior to questioning an action or claim made by yourself.
Yes, since I am a student of consistency, I also apply this to identifiers traditionally universally reviled.
Example. If I were a National Socialist (or Nazi) then would it be appropriate to revile me? Should all National Socialists be derided because Hitler happened? Likewise with Communism and Stalin? Would it not make more sense to go through the dozens or hundreds of policies that I would personally harbor (which would likely significantly differ from those I'd consider my peers in the field) and take aim at those policies that are more questionable (than myself as a person)?
You have Korean features? Making an issue of that is about as low as a detractor can go. I'd still have "fun" asking questions as to why the individual feels that "slanty eyes" are a bother. Easier to do on a text medium where we have time to think and craft our replies.
Thank you again for the thought provoking comment! Shine on. :c)
Most outrage is fake outrage or at least ill-considered. If you can tar and feather someone with an attack against their character, you don't need to consider their opinion or your own.
Speaking objective truth can get you labelled as something you're not by the perpetually outraged.
If someone says something I don't like I don't assume they are evil, unfortunately many do.
Outrage is never healthy. It's stress-inducing and often times unwarranted. Almost any situation can be handled through civilized speech and empathy!
This is very true @danedwards :c)
The thing is that even when somebody says something completely objectionable, one needs to realize that such presents a challenge and a mission. To tackle the statement (not the person) head-on.
Even outlandish or inferior perspectives on a matter serve to better one's understanding of the matter in question. Demonstrating (preferably through logic) that putting one's finger in a flame will burn and hurt is a legitimate way of determining or underlining the non-viability of that path.
Unfortunately people do lose their jobs and even their lives over perspectives posed, both inferior and superior.
Thank you for the upvote and comment!
The sad thing is, people only want to hear what pleases them. They are not open anything that contradicts their perspective. I have met very few people who become sincerely interested in hearing other people's opinions when those opinions are in opposition to their own. Even I get my back up when contradicted, so I truly admire people whose interest is piqued, and not their anger.
As a society we ridicule ideas we don't like. I thought people who said 'Jesus wasn't a Jew' were nutters - and then I listened to what one had to say. To my surprise, their argument was based in complex genealogies, and made sense in a complex genealogical way. So, people dismiss things, label them crazy, and refuse to listen when others speak of things that they immediately think of as outrageous - and the fault is theirs for shouting others down without listening to the what they have to say first.
BTW, when someone clicks on the report/downvote option, it provides a list of reasons why the post is being reported. "Outrage" isn't one of them. So, if anyone downvotes because they are outraged, they are abusing the option. If anyone downvotes because 'everyone else is, and I'm following them', then they are an idiot who can't think for themselves - and there is no option for that on the downvote menu either.
Thank you both for the up-vote and your comment @ajdohmen. :c)
Indeed you are right. We 'all' like to hear what pleases us. It is the more intellectually mature and honest among us who evolve beyond this to also take "the opposition's" perspective into consideration.
And yes, even then we often hold an attachment to our perspective on a matter. Such makes us feel a little special and we can sometimes take it personally if somebody starts to poke holes in it. This is natural - and yes I admire a person who can consistently rise above it all, whether or not their perspective on a matter is ultimately shown to be superior. The process is at least as important as the product.
One's religious outlook constitutes a pillar of who one truly is. To have an aspect of a pillar challenged is to feel that one has been addressed upon a personal level - and so one is naturally more defensive. I commend you for listening (whether you accepted it or not).
I agree. Outrage is not a legitimate reason to flag/down-vote a post or comment. An unreasoning "me too" down-vote is not something that I had even considered possible. I shudder at the emptyheadedness that such would require. O_o
Thank you again for your comment! :c)
Please reply to this comment so I can upvote- Since it's too late to add to your post. Thanks :)
Thank you kindly! ^_^
Gotta run.
Flight to catch - so will be 'dark' for a bit.
Safe travels!